The burden of proof lies on the party asserting self-acquisition in joint family property, which is subject to partition among co-owners.

JUDGMENT :

(Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.)

1. These Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No.211 of 1999 dated 31.01.2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The 2nd defendant filed A.S. No. 340 of 2007 questioning the judgment and decree passed in the suit for partition by allotting 1/6th share to plaintiff, the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, and defendants 4 to 6 in B, C & D schedule properties. Plaintiff and the 1st defendant also filed two separate Appeals i.e. A.S. No. 402 of 2007 and A.S. No.517 of 2007 aggrieved by the allocation of 1/6th share to each of their sisters in B & C schedule properties treating the same as ancestral Property.

2. Parties to the Appeals will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

3. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and the nature of findings in the judgment of the trial court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

4. Plaintiff filed the suit for decree of partition of A, B, and C schedule properties into three equal shares and allotment of one each share to himself and defendants 1 and 2 and 'D' schedule property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share each to himself and the 1st defendant and also for decree for recovery of Rs. 3,94,436/- in his favour which was paid by him to the State Bank of Hyderabad, Ibrahimpatnam Branch for discharge of loan amount.

The case of plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments set out in the plaint, is that plaint 'A' Schedule property is a Residential house bearing door number 8-121 situated at Ibrahimpatnam and it is the ancestral property, and the same was devolved upon the three brothers from their father. Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 acquired jointly several other properties, and the said properties are described in B and C Schedules. The Agricultural Lands in Survey Nos. 295 and 296 admeasuring Acs.10.28 gts and Acs.9.32 gts of Naganapally Village mentioned in 'B' Schedule are jointly acquired under Registered Sale Deed, dated 09.02.1989. The 'C' Schedule Property was acquired by the joint family in 1979, although it was purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant, who was not an earning member at the time. They have constructed a poultry shed for the development of joint family and it was entrusted to the 2nd defendant as he is unemployed and as the other two brothers are employed in Government Service. To facilitate development of poultry farm on 'C' Schedule property, loan was obtained in the name of the 2nd defendant and the said amount was used for construction of poultry shed and other infrastructure. The Poultry Farm is named as 'Shankar Poultry Farm'. The 2nd defendant has not paid loan to bank which filed EP.No.174 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court for recovery of Rs. Four Lakhs. The 2nd defendant allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte. On 06.09.1998, the bank attached 'C' Schedule Property and the date of auction was fixed on 06.09.1998. Plaintiff filed a claim petition in EA.No.118 of 1998 and undertook to discharge the said debt and as per the orders of the court, he paid nearly Rs. 3,94,436/-. The 2nd defendant got filed a suit by one Ravi Kumar and others creating a lease in their favour and obtained an interim injunction. On contest, the petition was dismissed vide order dated 13th September 1995. The 2nd defendant filed O.S. No.1 of 1998 for perpetual injunction against plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Plaintiff changed the name of the poultry farm as 'Sri Venkateswara Poultry Farm' as the 2nd defendant mismanaged the same and used funds without plaintiff or 1st defendant's consent leading to financial losses for the joint family. Plaintiff therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 25744 of 1999 against police not to interfere in civil disputes between himse